Chapter 7 PowerPoint

Theoretical Issues in Psychology
Philosophy of Science
and
Philosophy of Mind
for
Psychologists
B&LdeJ
1
Chapter 7
Modern approaches to mind (1)
• Functionalism
• Fodor’s computational theory of mind
• The language of thought
• Problems of LOT and AI
• Searle’s Chinese room argument
B&LdeJ
2
Two modern versions of
materialism: identity and functionalism
The MIND-BRAIN IDENTITY THEORY (IT)
mental process  brain process
FUNCTIONALISM
no reduction of mind to brain:
mental process can be realized in physical
process (brains, computers, or ...),
but not necessarily brain process;
therefore implementation of cognition
can be neglected.
B&LdeJ
3
Problems of the IT
according to functionalists
• We have too little knowledge for such a radical
identification: no type-identity, but token identity.
• IT threatens psychology’s autonomy.
• IT is too ‘chauvinistic’: only people like us, with
the same neuro-physiological make-up, can
have mind, intelligence, etc.
B&LdeJ
4
Functionalism: the philosophy of mind
of the first cognitive revolution
• ‘First’ cognitive revolution ca 1960 – ca 1980.
• Internal mental processes are scientifically legitimate
(vs. behaviourism).
• Mental processes are functional states of a machine.
• Functionalism is a one-level (design-stance) philosophy of
mind.
• Computation, information processing; the mind uses a
language of thought.
• Mind (intelligence) is software and could be materially realized
in various hardware-devices (human brains, computers).
• Hence, functionalism as philosophy goes hand in glove with AI.
B&LdeJ
5
Functionalism presented itself as
a new philosophy of mind
• Opposing dualism: materialism: token identity, every
function can be realised in something physical.
• Opposing identity theory: no type identity, functions
can be multiply realised.
• Opposing behaviourism: mental processes do exist,
are causes of behavior.
• Opposing reductionism: mental (functional)
explanations are autonomous; no reduction to
neuroscience.
B&LdeJ
6
Functionalism: functions as in software
• Mental processes are functions: the focus is on what they
do, as in computer programs (memory, retrieval etc.).
• Just like computer programs can be considered apart
from hardware,mental processes can be studied apart
from the brain.
• Mental states are functional / causal roles: they have
causal relations with input (information), output
(behavior), and other mental states (e.g. hunger: she is
hungry so she can only think of food now, and raids the
fridge).
B&LdeJ
7
Functionalism: multiple realization
• Multiple realization implies anti-reductionism
• Multiple realization: the same mental process (functional
state) can be realized in different physical systems
(human or animal brain, computer hardware, etc.)
• E.g., hunger in humans and octopusses: the same
functional state, the same causal role (looking for food),
but realized in different nervous systems (or
computational machinery).
• So, cognitive functions occur at an autonomous level
distinct from the physical realization (implementation);
and can be studied without neurophysiology.
B&LdeJ
8
Computational Theory of Mind (CTM)
by Jerry Fodor
• ‘Classical’ or ‘orthodox’ philosophy of cognition (cognitivism).
• Sources:
• Chomsky’s innate and generative grammar;
• computer science and AI;
• philosophy of language and logic;
• philosophy of mind: functionalism.
• Main features:
• computationalism;
• ‘language of thought’. B&LdeJ
9
CTM: the main features (1)
• Thinking is manipulation of mental symbols.
• Mental states, i.e. thoughts, beliefs, desires and representations, are codified in abstract symbols of a
formal language (cfr formal logic) which form ‘symbol
strings’ (cfr computer language).
• Thinking is computation on these symbol strings,
producing more symbol strings.
• Computation is following algorithms, i.e. series of formal
operations, according to formal, i.e. syntactical
rules.
• These formal syntactical processes ‘mirror’ semantics,
i.e., meaning and representing (intentionality).
B&LdeJ
10
Language of thought
• Is a sort of formal computer language in the head.
• A language abstracted and formalized into symbols.
• Arranged in mental propositions.
• Operations with these propositions are formal, i.e.
they follow formal rules (syntax) as in logic.
• Not with regard to content, meaning (semantics).
• Thoughts (representations) are logical formulae in
the head (cfr. Chomsky’s generative grammar).
• This is inborn (wired-in) ‘mentalese’.
B&LdeJ
11
The linguistic inspiration: the proposition
A proposition is the
linguistic (philosophy of language) term for a
statement in which something is affirmed or denied,
and which can therefore be either true or false.
e.g. He came in just after midnight.
She was not too frightened.
The early philosophy of cognition has adopted this
concept of proposition to refer to mental
states/representations:
mental propositions (mental sentences).
B&LdeJ
12
The logical inspiration: formality, syntax
Logic is a formal science: for a proposition we can write a
symbol: p, q, r etc. With these symbols and symbols for
logical operators (e.g., ‘>’ for implication: if ... then; ‘~’ for
negation: not) you can set up forms of reasoning, logical
rules, e.g.,
p>q
p
q
p>q
~q
~p
(x)(Hx > Mx)
Hs
 Ms
These are logical forms (rules): they apply due to the
form only (syntax); not as a result of the content or the
meaning (semantics) of the symbols: you can fill in
whatever proposition ( e.g., p: it is raining; q: the streets
are becoming wet).
B&LdeJ
13
CTM: folk psychology and intentionality
Folk psychology
• CTM’s wants to explain beliefs and desires, as in folk
psychology:
• e.g., he withdraws his money from the bank, because he
believes the bank will collapse and desires not to lose his
money.
• Beliefs and desires are intentional states.
• CTM: beliefs and desires are representations in the
language of thought.
• In this way folk psychology is justified by CTM.
• CTM explains folk psychology, in more or less the
same way as physics explains common sense view of
physical processes.
B&LdeJ
14
CTM: folk psychology and intentionality
Intentionality:
• intentionality can be explained mechanically; thinking is
mechanical as in computers;
• no “homunculus” is needed;
• intentionality works in a physical system;
• this offers a naturalistic explanation of intentionality, i.e.
how thinking causes behavior;
• is the Brentano-problem (How is thinking / intentionality
possible in a mechanical way?) solved ?
(cfr. Searle: “No! No intentionality or meaning in formalsyntactic machines.”)
B&LdeJ
15
CTM: problems LOT and AI (1)
• Formality condition (only formal structure determines
behavior); what about meanings: ‘syntax mirrors
semantics’; but how?
• Hence: ‘methodological solipsism’, i.e., internalism and
individualism: psychology ends at the skin; meanings
play no causal role.
• Representations can cause other thoughts and
behavior, without referring to objects in the world (their
meaning). The syntax of representations is more
important than their semantics.
• e.g., Barbara’s belief in Dracula may cause her desire to see
him, leave the window open and hide the crucifix, though
(probably) Dracula does not exist!
B&LdeJ
16
CTM: problems LOT and AI (2)
• Are rationality/intelligence, and also intentionality
possible in computational systems?
• Has a computer knowledge, representations?
• E.g., MYCIN: medical diagnostic program, but does not
know/understand anything about health/sickness,
physiology, anatomy etc.
• What about consciousness in mechanical devices,
computers?
B&LdeJ
17
John Searle: the ‘Chinese room’ argument
• Fodor’s CTM: thinking and understanding
(intentionality) is pushing meaningless symbols
according to formal syntactical rules.
• Searle: but pushing symbols is no garantee for
understanding: ‘evidence’
The thought experiment of the ‘Chinese Room’
• In a locked room: an English speaker without any
knowledge of Chinese.
• Input: Chinese symbols: questions.
• He has an instruction book how to proceed (program).
• output: Chinese symbols: answers.
• He simulates Chinese q&a; answers are correct (cfr.
Turing test).
• But he still does not understand any of the Chinese
B&LdeJ
18
symbols.
The Chinese Room
Questions
in Chinese
?
Book of
instructions
Searle
Non-Chinese
speaker
I still don’t
understand
B&LdeJ
Answers
in Chinese
19
John Searle: the ‘Chinese room’ argument
• Therefore (Searle) CTM must be wrong: manipulating
uninterpreted symbols does not produce
understanding, meaning, intentionality.
• Searle, a machine can think, and be conscious, but
only if that machine is a biological brain.
20